If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I'd rather see a level headed young conservative (pro self-defense) in the governor's chair, than an old business as usual politician.

If nothing else, I believe he is sincere and will do his best.

Grapeshot, while individuals state sincerity and wish to do their best I feel you have stated my perspective quite adequately in your signature block:

Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

For example, would a 16 year old governor have the insight to deal with the fires or the floods, or like in NM where the ABQ PD is under DoJ oversight allegedly due to incompetency, while the SPolice are now creating headlines for their antics, their state might endure during their rein of power.

Like Jimmy taking over the country, he lacked the political acumen, when he and his lackeys, moved into the white house...

The wisdom from being old can not be learned quick enough to adequately to govern.

I'd rather see a level headed young conservative (pro self-defense) in the governor's chair, than an old business as usual politician.

If nothing else, I believe he is sincere and will do his best.

Yes, of course. Unfortunately, even this idealistic young man will no doubt soon become an old, business as usual politician. It's the nature of the beast. They may start out wanting to rule well... but they do intend to rule, whatever it takes.

I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

No one who has not ever held civic elected office has any room to complain. Voting, obviously, is not enough.

That's a seriously irrational idea. First, anyone who "votes" is already attempting to use the force of non-voluntary government to impose their view on everyone else. That's the whole purpose of voting... The will of the majority to be imposed on the minority. You like that, probably, when it is your will to be imposed, but do you complain when it is you being compelled...

Running for or holding "elected office" is simply more of the same. Are those elected not subject to the same outcome when they "vote" in legislative sessions? As for complaining... don't see too much purpose in that. I simply do not comply, as much as possible. Resistance, non compliance, civil disobedience, even - heaven forbid - minding one's own business and insisting that others do the same in relation to your life... much more effective.

I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

SNIP No one who has not ever held civic elected office has any room to complain. Voting, obviously, is not enough.

This first comment is for the naysayers and those who might see an opportunity to drive a wedge. Nightmare and I have gotten along well for years, sharing many PMs. Do not for one second think that what I am about to say in any way detracts or subtracts from my opinion of his contributions. I am literally using his comment merely as a springboard for something else for new readers. This is not aimed at Nightmare; it is for new readers.

--------------------------------------

The Bill of Rights guarantees our right to complain.

Huh, Ciitzen!?!?!

Oh, yes.

How is that, Citizen? Wait, wait, Citizen. (sigh) Yes, Citizen. We understand everybody has a right to free speech. The First Amendment says so.

No. I wasn't talking about free speech. I was talking the constitutionally protected right to complain.

Which Amendment is that, Citizen?

The First Amendment.

The First Amendment has multiple rights. The right of free press, speech, assembly, two on religion. Can you remember the last right?

The right to petition for redress of grievances.

What is a grievance?

A complaint.

I assure you, gentle reader, that no where in the constitution--not in the constitution itself, nor the amendments--is there any requirement that you have to vote, or even participate at all, in order to be accorded the rights in the Bill of Rights.

So, when some hard-nosed fella who guesses he's got the answer tells you that you have no right to complain if you do not personally contribute, just whip out the preceding and lay it on him. You don't have to vote in order to have a right to complain. You don't have to volunteer somewhere in order to have the right to complain. You don't have to make any contribution at all. Not one. Your right to complain arises from your right to self-ownership. Anybody else interferes with that self-ownership, even in the tiniest degree, you can complain.

I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Currently; in the spring we bought a 40 ac. parcel on which to spread raw sewage. Last month our central wastewater system was condemned, now operating under a state 'variance' (scare quotes). We can't spread after the freeze. I'm politicking hard for a zero septic discharge anaerobic digester like CAFO's have to use - for $MMillions in a community of <1,000 souls.

How is this connected to the subject of this thread - 16 yo running for govenor in Kansas?

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

"Under Kansas law, there is no law governing the qualifications for governor, not one," said Bryan Caskey, director of elections at the Kansas secretary of state's office. "So there's seriously nothing on the books that lays out anything, no age, no residency, no experience. Nothing."

That's a seriously irrational idea. First, anyone who "votes" is already attempting to use the force of non-voluntary government to impose their view on everyone else. That's the whole purpose of voting... The will of the majority to be imposed on the minority. You like that, probably, when it is your will to be imposed, but do you complain when it is you being compelled...

Yes. So much better to just let everyone decide for himself what side of the street he wants to drive on and what the meaning of red lights vs green lights is on any given day.

Majority rules, with protections for minority rights, is about the best workable way of ordering a society anyone has every actually demonstrated when it comes to large, diverse groups of people. Add a health dose of federalism so that as many decisions as possible can be made locally with diversity among communities and States on issues not touching on agreed upon fundamental rights, and we can limit disagreements and unhappiness.

"Non voluntary government" is an all but meaningless, pejorative catch phrase to include, it seems, all functioning governments.

The fundamental problem for anarchists and "voluntary government" types is to explain how they intend to resolve disagreements among individuals or groups when neither side will retreat from his position. Ultimately, it comes down to force, but without the kind of due process and minority rights protections our current system provides.

The federal constitution is not perfect. It would be much better if we actually held our government to abiding it. But even if perfectly abided, it would not be perfect. It does however hold a key advantage over any claimed perfect form of government and that is that it has been tried and proven to work reasonably well, even when imperfectly adhered to.

I was asked to run for Town Board of Supervisors and was overwhelmingly elected (260/300 most ever). I voted my principles through my term of two years, principally NO, and was as roundly unseated. I had been assigned a seat on the appointed zoning committee that I kept for a further two years, always voting my principles, principally NO.

No one who has not ever held civic elected office has any room to complain. Voting, obviously, is not enough.

I don't know that one has to hold office to have room to complain. But your experience highlights why I like to see a guy with a little experience in lower elected office before entrusting him with higher office. This despite me not caring for lifetime politicians. Yes, I know. A seeming contradiction.

Fact is, it is one thing to stand on principle and quite another to have to cast votes in public that really affect someone else. A man who can stand on principle, find solutions that respect rights, and limit government activity to its proper roles when there is lots of pressure to do something else is a rare find. But a guy who can't vote the right way on zoning or other seemingly small local municipal elections probably isn't going to develop backbone when the questions are of national or even Statewide importance.

I appreciate an energetic youth. But I think the Framers were prudent in setting minimum age requirements for Congress, the Senate, and the POTUS.

I'd consider a well educated youth for board of supervisors or zoning commission. And then a few years later I might well consider that young man for mayor or State legislator. And a few years later, I might be very excited to support a still fairly young man for governor. But a 16 year old is not my first choice for governor, just based on lack of experience and lack of proven ability to do the right thing when pressure is real.

I don't know that one has to hold office to have room to complain. But your experience highlights why I like to see a guy with a little experience in lower elected office before entrusting him with higher office. This despite me not caring for lifetime politicians. Yes, I know. A seeming contradiction.

Fact is, it is one thing to stand on principle and quite another to have to cast votes in public that really affect someone else. A man who can stand on principle, find solutions that respect rights, and limit government activity to its proper roles when there is lots of pressure to do something else is a rare find. But a guy who can't vote the right way on zoning or other seemingly small local municipal elections probably isn't going to develop backbone when the questions are of national or even Statewide importance.

I appreciate an energetic youth. But I think the Framers were prudent in setting minimum age requirements for Congress, the Senate, and the POTUS.

I'd consider a well educated youth for board of supervisors or zoning commission. And then a few years later I might well consider that young man for mayor or State legislator. And a few years later, I might be very excited to support a still fairly young man for governor. But a 16 year old is not my first choice for governor, just based on lack of experience and lack of proven ability to do the right thing when pressure is real.

But it is good to see 16 year olds on the right side of RKBA.

It's better if running for elected office to start at the local level, then move your way up to county than state than Federal. Starting small by becoming a City Councilmember/Alderman helps you establish a base of which to get your feet wet. Also by starting small, it shows the voting public that you have the experience from being in those lower level offices. Same thing can be said for the workforce & wanting to be a manager, when the only experience you have is as a ditch digger.